Supporters look on as Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign event last Friday in Madison, Wis. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

Opinion | Another major conflict of interest in the media

In the wake of Olivia Nuzzi-RFK Jr. scandal, New York Post fails to disclose GOP politics work of reporter covering Wisconsin races

by · Poynter

There has been a lot of talk in journalism circles the past few days about political reporting and a conflict of interest among reporters. Most of that talk has surrounded New York magazine placing high-profile Washington reporter Oliva Nuzzi on leave while it looks into the reporter’s admitted personal relationship with a subject she has covered: Robert Kennedy Jr. (If you’re not caught up on the details of that, check out my Monday newsletter.)

Well, here’s another story involving a conflict of interest and political reporting. It might not be as gossipy and scandalous as the Nuzzi-Kennedy story, but it’s every bit as troubling when it comes to possible biased reporting. Maybe even more so.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Daniel Bice reported how earlier this year, the New York Post began publishing a number of stories about the presidential, Senate and congressional races in Wisconsin. It was all a part of the paper’s look into politics in the swing states.

But Bice reports that the Post reporter who wrote those stories has “strong ties to Republicans and conservatives in Wisconsin.” In fact, Bice wrote, the reporter in question, Amy Sikma, was twice paid by the state Republican Party for consulting work. In addition, Bice wrote, “She was also a campaign consultant for former Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly’s 2023 campaign, previously ran a primary contest for a GOP candidate and worked for an organization that opposes same-sex marriage.”

None of those things were disclosed in either the stories Sikma wrote or in her bio on the Post website. Her bio says she is a “political and public-policy-research writer with more than 15 years of experience in Wisconsin politics, from the State Capitol to political campaigns to research and communications.”

That simply isn’t transparent enough.

Bice goes on to write that Sikma wrote stories that were critical of Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, former U.S. Rep. Peter Barca and congressional candidate Rebecca Cooke. And what do all these politicians have in common? They are all Democrats.

This isn’t even a tough call. Given her history, Sikma should not be writing news stories about Wisconsin politics. And if she does, she and the Post absolutely have to be transparent and disclose that information to the readers.

When asked by Bice, Sikma said, “Well, I’m writing stories for the benefit of the readers.” She then referred questions to her editor, Kelly Jane Torrnence, who had not responded to Bice when Bice published his story.

Defending the coverage

The media — and, in this case, I’m talking about the major TV networks, the cable news stations and the big outlets that cover national politics, such as The New York Times, Washington Post and so forth — often get criticized for their coverage of Donald Trump.

On one hand, if you print or air everything Trump says — no matter how false or ridiculous it might be — then news outlets can be criticized for being reckless, and letting Trump say whatever he wants. On the other hand, if you edit out all the wild, untrue things Trump says, then you run the risk of making Trump sound more coherent. To do that, as my colleague Kelly McBride recently wrote, is to “sanewash” him.

McBride wrote, “Like greenwashing (taking superficial actions in the name of helping the environment), or sportswashing (using sporting events to burnish one’s reputation and gloss over corruption or human rights abuses), sanewashing is the act of packaging radical and outrageous statements in a way that makes them seem normal.”

So, in the end, journalists might be stuck between a Trump and a hard place.

In a recent episode of NPR’s “Fresh Air,” noted New York Times political writer Maggie Haberman, who has a long history covering Trump, defended the media’s coverage of Trump.

Haberman said, “I think that the media does a very good job covering Trump.”

Haberman said there are always going to be specific stories, many of which are written on tight deadlines, that could be a little better or more precise.

However, Haberman added, “I think there is an industry, bluntly … that is dedicated toward attacking the media, especially as it relates to covering Donald Trump and all coverage of Trump. And I think that Trump is a really difficult figure to cover because he challenges news media process every day – has for years. The systems are just fundamentally — they were not built to deal with somebody who says things that are not true as often as he does or speaks as incoherently as he often does.”

Haberman continued by saying, “I think the media has actually done a very good job showing people who he is, what he says, what he does. I think most of the information that the public has about Trump is because of reporting by the media. And I guess I don’t really understand how this industry that literally exists to attack the press broadly – and the media is not a monolith. It’s not a league. But this industry that exists to do that — I don’t see how they think they are a solution by undermining faith in what we do. That’s been very confusing to me.”

I’m with Haberman on this. There are those who criticize political coverage, often because those doing the criticizing let their personal politics heavily influence their reactions.

Haberman continued by saying, “I’m talking about criticism on the left. I’m talking about … Trump has used the language of despots to undermine the press. It is very well established, and it’s very dangerous. And I’ve talked about that. The publisher of The New York Times has been incredibly clear about that. He published an op-ed recently in The Washington Post actually talking about that. So I don’t think that anybody at The New York Times is trying to sanitize Trump’s language. Do I think that there are occasional pieces at my paper, at other papers that probably should have been done differently? That’s absolutely true. But what happens with this industry on the left that attacks the press is that it gets described as a grand conspiracy to try to help Trump somehow, as opposed to people doing their job on daily deadlines and not always hitting the mark because we are humans. And we are doing our best under a very challenging set of circumstances. But I actually think the media has done a very good job of covering Trump.”

(Hat tip to Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher for this item.)

Then there’s the counterpoint …

Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, speaking at a campaign event on Monday in Smithton, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Mark Jacob, a former editor at the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, now writes a media newsletter and disagreed with Haberman’s take that Trump is covered well.

Jacob wrote in this newsletter, “Please. The media does not do a good job covering Trump. If it did, Trump’s lies about the economy, crime, immigration, energy, and countless other issues would not have gained such purchase among the public. Trump lies successfully because the people in the truth business are doing a lousy job.”

I’m not endorsing what Jacob wrote, but thought I would share it. He has plenty more to say on the topic, if you’re interested. I will add a reporter friend of mine — Les Bowen, formerly of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News —  posted on X, “… the media aren’t entirely to blame. The other part is that many millions of people badly WANT to believe his lies, and won’t listen to anyone who says they aren’t true.”

That is spot on.

Jacob weighs in on Nuzzi-Kennedy

Also in his newsletter, Jacob solidly captured the whole mess involving Olivia Nuzzi and Robert Kennedy, Jr. He wrote, “This is not a gray area in journalism. Reporters are supposed to avoid and disclose conflicts of interest. If Kennedy made inappropriate advances, Nuzzi should have written about it. If she was the one who overstepped, she should have resigned. If the personal relationship was welcomed by both of them, she should have gone to her editor and asked to be taken off the story.”

Jacob added, “While journalist misbehavior is nothing new, the Nuzzi scandal is particularly unwelcome because it comes a month and a half before a crucial election. Credible reporting is desperately needed as the news industry takes fire from both cynical propagandists and honest journalism watchdogs.”

Media tidbits

Hot type

The New York Times’ Matt Flegenheimer with “The Long, Strange Saga of Kamala Harris and Kimberly Guilfoyle.”

With a hurricane about to form in the Gulf of Mexico, this story from The Washington Post’s “The Drowning South” series is especially timely. It’s Chris Mooney, John Muyskens and Brady Dennis (with photos and videos by Ricky Carioti) with “Where the sea wall ends.”

Here’s an entertaining sports story: The Athletic’s Pete Sampson with “Inside Miami (OH)’s Notre Dame experience: An all-access pass to denied upset dreams.”

More resources for journalists

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.